Uddhao Uttamrao Kalamkhede vs The State Of Maharashtra &4 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 1822 Bom

                                                               1                                         

                                                                                                     18.4WP.3215.00.odt  

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2000.


     Udhao Uttamrao Kalamkhede, 
     aged 40 years, Occupation Service,
     Conductor at MSRTC, Amravati
     Division, resident of Majalpur, post 
     Mhaispur, tahsil Bhatkuli, district 
     Amravati. ......                                                                                    PETITIONER.

                        ....Versus....

     1]  The State of Maharashtra,
         through its Secretary, Department
         of Tribal Development, Mantralaya,
         Bombay - 32,

     2] The Chairman, Committee for
        Scrutiny of Tribes and
        Verification of Tribes Claims,
        Giripeth, Amravati Road,
        Nagpur,

     3] Divisional Controller, 
        Maharashtra State Road
        Transport Corporation,
        Division Kolhapur, dist.
        Kolhapur. 

     4] Deputy Manager, 
        Maharashtra State Road
        Transport Corporation,
        Radhanagari,  dist.
        Kolhapur. 

     5] The Executive Magistrate,
        Amravati.                                                 .....                            RESPONDENTS.



::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:42:32 :::
                                                                2                                         

                                                                                                     18.4WP.3215.00.odt  

     Mr. S.G. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner,
     Mr.   Nitin   Rode,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   the   respondent
     nos. 1, 2 & 5,
     Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent nos 3 & 4.


                                 CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 18, 2017.

1] Civil Application (C.A.W.) No. 728 of 2017 has been filed

by the petitioner seeking disposal of the Writ Petition on the ground

that the petitioner does not desire to prosecute his caste claim and

would be satisfied if his services are protected. Hence, the Writ

Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2] The petitioner claims to belong to Mahadeo Koli -

Scheduled Tribe. He was appointed as a Conductor with the

respondent no.2 in the year 1997. His caste certificate was sent for

verification and by the order dated 6.5.2000, the Scrutiny Committee

invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the

present Writ Petition has been filed.

3] Mr. S.G. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits

on instructions that the petitioner does not desire to prosecute his

caste claim. He states, however, that the impugned order came to be

18.4WP.3215.00.odt

passed by the Scrutiny Committee without grant of proper

opportunity. Similarly, a copy of the report of the vigilance cell was

also not served on the petitioner. He submits that in the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee there is no observation made that

the documents relied upon by the petitioner were obtained by fraud or

misrepresentation. The petitioner, therefore, submits that as per the

judgment of the Full Bench in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs.

State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(I) Mh. L.J. 457

dated 22.12.2014, his services deserve to be protected.

4] Mr. V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for respondent nos 3

& 4, on the other hand, submitted that despite sufficient opportunity,

the petitioner remained absent and did not appear before the Scrutiny

Committee. According to him, the report of the Vigilance Cell

indicates that the entry Koli is found in the old documents.

5] It is to be noted that in paragraph no. 3 of the Writ Petition

it has been averred that the petitioner had requested the Scrutiny

Committee for grant of time to prove his claim but no sufficient

opportunity was granted. It is also pleaded that the copy of the

report of the vigilance cell was not served on the petitioner. There is

18.4WP.3215.00.odt

no affidavit filed on record controverting this assertion. The perusal of

the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee does not indicate that

the documents submitted by the petitioner were stated to be obtained

by fraud or misrepresentation. Considering the fact that the

petitioner is in service since the year 1997, we are inclined to protect

the services of the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Full

Bench.

6] Hence, it is declared that the services of the petitioner

shall stand protected. The petitioner shall file an affidavit in this Court

within a period of four weeks from today that neither he nor his

progeny shall claim any benefit of belonging to Koli Mahadeo -

Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner shall be treated as being appointed

in the open category. In case the petitioner obtains validity as Koli

Special Backward Class, his appointment shall be treated in the said

category.

The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made

absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

The Civil Application (CAW) No. 728/17 stands disposed

of accordingly.

    J.                         JUDGE.                                                                        J
                                                                                                               UDGE.